deerhound wrote:The Keystone XL pipeline would create jobs and Obama and the Democrats can't have that! Cheap abundant energy would solve the Nations economic woes. That would mean that dependence on The Gunrunner to the Cartels for sustenance would decrease drastically as would the perceived need for Democrats.

What about the landowners through whose land the pipeline would pass? Don't they have a say in the matter?

Or is the good of the country and "jobs" more important than landowners and their private property rights?

How is eminent domain consistent with liberty?

There are numerous pipelines running under private property. This is nothing new.

And does that make it right?

For the most part, yes.

I love private property rights, and I'll fight heavily for them. However, there's also a practical matter at hand. Suppose you're a private property owner surrounded by other private property. And you decide you want to pay and have electrical lines run to your property. And maybe a gas line. But your neighbors refuse any route for the lines, and won't accept any reasonable compensation for the right of way. Does that mean you should have no recourse at all to get power and gas to your property?...

How do you get to this 'land-locked' property?

Unless you fly in and out with a helicopter, you've got either deeded access, or you've got a public road.

Either way, you have routing to supply your utilities.

That, or you commit the crime of tresspassing each time you arrive or leave.

That's precisely what I'm saying... there needs to be reasonable access. Property rights - important as they are - should not be SO absolute that they shut out any chance for reasonable access (for things like roads and utilities) to someone else's property.

Udall vs Gardner isn't really about Udall or Gardner.

It's about HARRY REID, and whether he gets to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. Do you like the job he's done making Congress function for the last 8 years? Yes? No?

gglaurson@msn.com wrote: That wasn't my point which was they are rapidly turning about from the old energy sources. Yes they still depend on 44% of their power from oil and coal yet also a better than 25% usage of alternatives. Those alternatives are 36% wind, biomass 25%, hydro 14%,solar 21%. They are also turning away from nuclear as more alternatives are placed on line. Now France has over 75% nuclear power so there is a big mix in Europe in trying to keep pollution down and the environment cleaner. I do question France relying so much on nuclear power yet so far it has worked for them. (they do recycle much of their nuclear waste and far better than other nations that have any nuclear capacity).

I question those who post lies to try and make a point

To right-wingers, facts are "lies" and beliefs are "truths".

The fact is Germany doesn't rely on solar power and only generates 3% of their electricity from solar, despite what you believe

Solar power is not the only renewable energy source. It is an easily verifiable FACT that Germany generates about a quarter of its electricity from renewable energy sources.

He said "Germany relies on solar power", and even counting all renewables Germany still relies on fossil fuels (especial now that they are decommissioning their nuclear power plants)

He posted the correct percentages of the various power sources in the post to which you responded with your comment about "lies".

"If I don't know I know, I think I don't know. If I don't know I don't know, I think I know."R. D. Laing

dbsb3233 wrote:...That's precisely what I'm saying... there needs to be reasonable access. Property rights - important as they are - should not be SO absolute that they shut out any chance for reasonable access (for things like roads and utilities) to someone else's property.

But, property rights are absolute.

Without that road, or deeded access, you have no right to cross someone else's land with permanent improvements.

If you want further proof, study up on mineral rights and how aggressivly they are protected by the owning corporate entities and the courts.

This is what you need to look at, before you think about what does, and doesn't, make sense.

dbsb3233 wrote:I love private property rights, and I'll fight heavily for them. However, there's also a practical matter at hand. Suppose you're a private property owner surrounded by other private property. And you decide you want to pay and have electrical lines run to your property. And maybe a gas line. But your neighbors refuse any route for the lines, and won't accept any reasonable compensation for the right of way. Does that mean you should have no recourse at all to get power and gas to your property?

I agree that property rights are very important, but they're not 100% absolute. Some reasonable accommodation needs to be available for basic infrastructure, which includes things like roads, power lines, and pipelines. They're generally very unobtrusive. It's usually a small accommodation providing great benefit.

Where do you draw the line? The original purpose of eminent domain was to allow the construction of things that were intended for the benefit of everyone, such as roads. In this case, eminent domain will be used to seize land for the benefit of a private company. Should private citizens have the right to seize others' property?

"If I don't know I know, I think I don't know. If I don't know I don't know, I think I know."R. D. Laing

less free wrote:There are numerous pipelines running under private property. This is nothing new.

And does that make it right?

For the most part, yes.

I love private property rights, and I'll fight heavily for them. However, there's also a practical matter at hand. Suppose you're a private property owner surrounded by other private property. And you decide you want to pay and have electrical lines run to your property. And maybe a gas line. But your neighbors refuse any route for the lines, and won't accept any reasonable compensation for the right of way. Does that mean you should have no recourse at all to get power and gas to your property?

I agree that property rights are very important, but they're not 100% absolute. Some reasonable accommodation needs to be available for basic infrastructure, which includes things like roads, power lines, and pipelines. They're generally very unobtrusive. It's usually a small accommodation providing great benefit.

Private property rights ARE 100% absolute. Without property rights there can be no liberty. The old saying "You give an inch, they take a mile" is 100% correct, especially with regards to government.

Besides, if roads, power, pipelines, etc. were solely in the hands of the private sector, there would be no need for eminent domain as everything would be settled in the free market voluntarily.

I warned you people back in 2007 that Obama was going to be a carbon-copy of Bush and would continue most of his policies. And you laughed at me. All I have to say about that is:

deerhound wrote:The Keystone XL pipeline would create jobs and Obama and the Democrats can't have that! Cheap abundant energy would solve the Nations economic woes. That would mean that dependence on The Gunrunner to the Cartels for sustenance would decrease drastically as would the perceived need for Democrats.

Actually Mexico will remain a primary source of US Crude and the TarSands DilBit in the Keystone is destined for export. But those are facts and low-info peeps love easy (false) answers that the Denver Post is more than happy to serve up. Slurp slurp.

That's right. There already is a Keystone Pipeline. It runs from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and on down to a trans-shipment and storage hub in Oklahoma. Phases 1 and 2 from this map are already complete:

The reason for the XL extension, by TransCanada's own admission, is that the USA isn't using enough of their tar sands bitumen so they want us to build the XL extension to ship the crap out of the Gulf for them.

This idea that Keystone XL will help the US achieve "energy independence" by getting most of our oil from our friendly neighbors to the north, thus breaking free of the tyranny of oil-producing states in the Mid East, Mexico, or South America is pure political spin. We're not using enough of Alberta's garbage tar sands bitumen so we're helping Canada ship it overseas. That's all there is to this: it's not about jobs and it's not about energy independence for the USA.

I hear that complaint a lot, and it mostly rings hollow. It just doesn't make any sense.

Will *some* excess crude be shipped out when US Gulf refinery capacity is maxed out? Sure. That's gonna happen when you suddenly turn on a major new flow of oil going to the Gulf refinery area at the same time all those supertankers and bringing a bunch in from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. If you have more coming in than the regional refineries can handle, then OF COURSE the excess will be shipped somewhere else.

But only a fool would expect that situation to remain permanent. A combination of two things will happen... (1) Gulf refineries expanding to handle the additional supply, and (2) those refineries purchasing fewer contracts for future shipment from overseas. It's cheaper to transport oil by pipeline from Canada to the Gulf than it is to ship it from Africa or the Middle East to the Gulf. Therefore logically, those shipments will eventually slow down as US refineries use more Canadian oil.

Oil deliver contracts are commonly purchased for delivery 6-18 months out. There would be some excess shipped away while those contracts run their course. But new futures contracts by Gulf refineries would eventually buy all or most of the Keystone flow, allowing then to reduce purchases from Africa and the Middle East.

Oil is a fungible commodity. Most of the flow to the places that need it will migrate toward the cheapest transport methods.

It already is maxed out. We're not talking about the remote possibility of "some excess" of USA usage at some point in the future. There already is excess. Lots of it. That's why Trans Canada wants to ship it overseas now, not at some point in the future. Illinois has been online for four years. We already have the crap and we obviously don't want it very badly because we're not using much of it. It costs much more and requires more energy to refine the garbage tar sands bitumen than it does light crude. We're using their bitumen mostly for low-grade heating oil since the quality of the bitumen is so lousy. This isn't the type of "oil" that turns into premium grade gasoline regardless of what the political spin machine is trying to tell us.

Lord Worm wrote:...The fact is Germany doesn't rely on solar power and only generates 3% of their electricity from solar, despite what you believe

According to your own link, Germany produced 3.2% of their power in 2012.

In 2013 they produced 4.4% of their power with Solar.

Almost a 40% increase, and growing.

Germany is decommissioning all of it's nuclear power plants and replacing them with sustainable sources of energy.

Stay current.

Ummm no, they are relying more heavily on coal, perhaps you should stay current.

Perhaps you should. While Germany is using a slightly higher percentage of coal than they did 5 years ago, they are using a lower percentage than 10 years ago. Even for the 5-year period, the increase in use of renewables was twice that of the increase in the use of coal.

Really? "It was a situation that the German government wanted to change, with the aim being that of radically reducing the output of the CO2-polluting lignite plants, but that's not happening. In 2013, it rose to 162 billion kilowatt hours, the highest level since reunification in 1990, according to preliminary figures from AGEB, a collection of industry associations and research institutes."http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 42216.html

At it will only become worse for the simple reason of over population. That is why it is even more urgent to resort to alternatives as more people have a need for more energy. The problem is no different here in this country where more coal usage will equal more pollution and back to having an increase in health related problems. So health,population,alternatives,oil and gas go hand in hand in what to expect in the future. We can start making the right choices now or keep putting the problems off.

Let's hear it for king OIL we should all bow down and let them do whatever they want and say"It's for the best" Don't look at all the stuff going into our air when we process it or the effect on our earth from spills. No that doesen't matter only more and more oil and more and more and more profit for the few.

Absolutely. More oil means lower prices, which means more money for us all to spend on other things. The hypocrisy of the EnviroNazis that drive SUV's and use more than their share of fossil fuels is stunning. Sort of reminds me of Al Gore and the hollywood losers.

Robertgrpuch wrote:Let's hear it for king OIL we should all bow down and let them do whatever they want and say"It's for the best" Don't look at all the stuff going into our air when we process it or the effect on our earth from spills. No that doesen't matter only more and more oil and more and more and more profit for the few.

I would be willing to bet you drive a car, just like the rest of us, which makes your post extremely hypocritical.

Good grief, Fritts! Oil is not used only for transportation fuel. It is used to create many items we use every day - plastics, paint, fabrics, medicines, etc.

If we stopped producing oil, as you seem to want, the quality of life of the entire world would backslide. Have you ever really thought about what we would do without if we stopped producing oil? Or, are you just happy to spout anti-oil drivel without thought of the consequences?

As for the oil line crossing private property - the landowners can still use the surface for what they want, except building permanent structures within the right-of-way. True, trees were removed, but the oil companies paid for each tree removed. It is not a zero-impact process, but landowners are compensated fairly. Based on local compensation for small lines, I would venture a guess that each impacted landowner received enough pay off more than the affected right-of-way area. They likely received 4 - 10 times the value of the land. Not a bad deal.

Absolutely. More oil means lower prices, which means more money for us all to spend on other things. The hypocrisy of the EnviroNazis that drive SUV's and use more than their share of fossil fuels is stunning. Sort of reminds me of Al Gore and the hollywood losers.

Except that oil production in the US is higher than it's been in decades, and the prices are still sky high.

That's because prices are manipulated on the commodities exchange by fat cats with deep wallets, not regulated by supply and demand.